BackgroundType 2 diabetes and its management affect the patient and the close family potentially causing either psychological distress or increased sense of responsibility and collaboration in these families. Interactions between patient and family play an important role in maintaining lifestyle changes and diabetes self-management. The purpose of this integrative review was to summarise and assess published studies on the intra-family perspective of supportive and non-supportive interactions in families with a type 2 diabetes patient.MethodsIncluded in the review were published qualitative and quantitative studies that examined the intra-family perspective on supportive and non-supportive interactions. We searched the literature from 2000 to 2016 and the search strategy comprised the following databases: Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Psyc-ARTICLES as well as hand searching of reference lists. Quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were undertaken on all included studies.ResultsWe identified five eligible research papers. Employing content analysis three categories describing interactions were refined: Impact of practical action, impact of emotional involvement, and impact of communication content. Supportive interactions included encouraging communication and family collaboration in managing diet, medications, and blood glucose checking. Non-supportive interactions were visible irritation, nagging behaviour and refusing to share the burden of living with diabetes.ConclusionThe findings stress the importance of including both patient and family in clinical practice to target diabetes self-management adherence and well-being of the whole family. The majority of self-management occurs within the family environment. Therefore, the intra-family perspective of supportive and non-supportive interactions should be understood and addressed as the family members are interdependent and affected by each other. Future research assessing the impact of professional support and the family function will have the potential to improve the daily life and well-being of patients with type 2 diabetes as well as the whole family.
BackgroundConstipation is a common problem among older people. This study aimed to explore how older patients experience constipation and which strategies they used in handling the condition before and during hospitalization.MethodsA qualitative exploratory research design was used. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (61–91 years of age) during hospitalization. Data were analyzed by using content analysis.ResultsThemes concerning experiences were Bodily signs and symptoms of constipation; the participants described severe pain during constipation, as well as pronounced relief after bowel movements, Impact on well-being and social activities; being constipated negatively impacted their mood and limited social activities, Striving for bowel balance; the participants experienced an ongoing strive for balancing between constipation and diarrhea. Themes related to strategies were Struggling to find a solution; they were aware of different strategies to prevent and treat constipation, though the most common solution described was the use of laxatives, Wait and see; the participants were awaiting to take action until they experienced constipation symptoms, Constipation is a private problem being challenged during hospitalization; constipation was considered a private issue rarely discussed with health-care professionals.ConclusionThis study illuminates the need for health-care professionals to be attentive to this issue and initiate the conversation with patients in order to advise on the management of constipation.
Healthcare professionals need to be aware of the experiences of living with constipation as well as the range of strategies used by patients to prevent and treat constipation. The patient perspective on constipation needs to be integrated in the strategies and actions carried out by healthcare professionals.
Aim: To describe the patient's experience of family function and its importance in diabetes-related self-management. Background: Many patients fail to reach the targeted glycemic level due to low self-management adherence. Knowledge is needed regarding the impact of family function on diabetes selfmanagement. Design: A qualitative descriptive design. Methods: A purposive sample of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes. Data were collected in March-June 2017 via audio recorded semi-structured interviews, field notes and Eco-maps. Analyzed using thematic framework matrix and thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were identified: (1) Downplaying disease. The disease was trivialized creating a barrier to family involvement; (2) Second guessing. When diabetes was not discussed, patient and family made their own assumptions; (3) Going it alone. The participants preferred sole disease responsibility to maintain usual family life; (4) No regrets. The participants managed their disease with medications only to maintain family cohesion and "the good life". Conclusion: The participants in our study downplayed the consequences of type 2 diabetes and chose to control their disease medically rather than by lifestyle changes. They renounced family involvement to maintain their lifestyle and promote family cohesion.
BackgroundTo target optimised medical care the Danish guidelines for diabetes recommend stratification of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) into three levels according to risk and complexity of treatment. The aim was to describe the T2D population in an outpatient clinic, measure the compliance of the endocrinologists’ to perform risk stratification, and investigate the level of concordance between stratification performed by the endocrinologists and objective assessments.MethodsA cross-sectional study with data collected from medical records and laboratory databases. The Danish risk stratification model contained the following criteria: HbA1c, blood pressure, metabolic complications, microvascular and macrovascular complications. Stratification levels encompassed: level 1 (uncomplicated), level 2 (intermediate risk) and level 3 (high risk). Objective assessments were conducted independently by two health professionals, and compared with the endocrinologists’ assessments. In order to test the degree of concordance, we conducted Cohen's kappa, McNemar’s test for marginal homogeneity, and Bowker’s test for symmetry.ResultsOf 245 newly referred patients, 209 (85 %) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (16 %), level 2 (55 %) and level 3 (29 %). By objective assessments, 4 % were stratified to level 1, 51 % to level 2 and 45 % to level 3. Of 419 long-term follow-up patients, 380 (91 %) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (5 %), level 2 (57 %), level 3 (38 %). By objective assessments, 3 % were stratified to level 1, 58 % to level 2 and 39 % to level 3. The concordance rate between endocrinologists’ and objective assessments was 63 % among newly referred (kappa 0.39; fair agreement) and 67 % for long-term follow-up (kappa 0.45; moderate agreement). Among newly referred patients, the endocrinologists stratified less patients at level 3 compared to objective assessments (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in marginal distribution within long-term follow-up patients.ConclusionType 2 diabetes patients, newly referred to or allocated for long-term follow-up in the out-patient clinic, were mainly intermediate and high-risk, complicated patients (96 % and 95 %, respectively). Compliance of stratification by endocrinologists was high. The concordance between endocrinologists’ and objective assessments was not strong. Our data suggest that clinician-support for stratification level categorisation might be needed.
BackgroundThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is growing globally and hospital-based outpatient clinics are burdened with increasing numbers of patients. To ensure high quality treatment and care, it is necessary to structurally reorganise the management of patients with T2D. The objective of this study is to test if T2D patients (who are at intermediate risk of or are already having incipient diabetic complications) jointly managed by a hospital-based outpatient clinic and general practitioners (shared care programme) have a non-inferior outcome compared to an established programme in a specialised (hospital based) outpatient diabetes clinic.MethodsThe study is designed as a randomised controlled trial. The shared care model will be tested during a period of 3 years, with data collection at baseline and at 12, 24 and 36 months. All patients will be offered four medical visits a year; the shared care intervention consists of one annual comprehensive check-up at the outpatient clinic and three quarterly visits at the general practitioners’ office. The control group will be followed with four quarterly visits at the outpatient clinic, including an annual comprehensive check-up. In the outpatient clinic, the patients will be treated by a specialised diabetes team, including an endocrinologist. On the basis of a predefined stratification model, we will recruit patients stratified to be at intermediate risk of or already having incipient diabetic complications. We plan to include 140 patients. The primary outcome is glycated haemoglobin. Other outcome measures include (1) the proportion of patients who meet the Danish standard indicators reflecting quality of care; (2) quality of life measured by Short Form 36; and (3) the functionality of the patients’ families measured by Family Assessment Measure III. The experiences of the patients and families when participating in the shared care program will be explored by collecting dyadic interviews.DiscussionThis study will evaluate the quality of a shared care programme for patients with T2D, and provide evidence about advantages and disadvantages compared with a programme in a specialised outpatient clinic. The results may provide important information on how to organise the care for patients with T2D in the future.Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov on 21 October 2015, registration number: NCT02586545.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1409-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Aim To evaluate whether management of people with Type 2 diabetes shared between a specialized outpatient clinic and primary health care has noninferior HbA1c outcomes compared with mono‐sectorial management in a specialized outpatient clinic. Methods A randomized controlled, noninferiority study. People with moderate hyperglycaemia, hypertension and/or incipient complications were eligible for the study. All participants had annual comprehensive check‐ups at the outpatient clinic. Quarterly check‐ups were conducted by general practitioners (GPs) for the shared care group and by endocrinologists at the outpatient clinic for the control group. The primary outcome was the mean difference in HbA1c from baseline to 12 months of follow‐up. The noninferiority margin for HbA1c was 4.4 mmol/mol. Results A total of 140 people were randomized [age 65.0 ± 0.9 years, HbA1c 52 ± 0.8 mmol/mol (6.9 ± 0.1%), systolic BP 135.6 ± 1.1 mmHg; all mean ± sem]. Peripheral neuropathy was present in 68% of participants and microalbuminuria in 19%; 15% had history of a previous major cardiovascular event. Among study completers (n = 133), HbA1c increased by 2.3 mmol/mol (0.2%) in the shared care group and by 1.0 mmol/mol (0.1%) in the control group, with a between‐group difference of 1.3 mmol/mol [90% confidence interval (CI) −1.3, 3.9] (0.1%, 90% CI −0.1, 0.4). Noninferiority was confirmed in both per protocol and intention to treat analyses. Conclusion We found that our shared care programme was noninferior to specialized outpatient management in maintaining glycaemic control in this group of people with Type 2 diabetes. Shared care should be considered for the future diabetes management of Type 2 diabetes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.